Heavy objects are not easier to move around in a horizontal fashion on the moon than on the earth. why?
Because the weight of an object changes when you go to the Moon. Because there's less gravitational pull. But you're not changing the mass. Mass is a measure of how much "stuff" you're dealing with. And that hasn't changed.
Why is it difficult to move objects on the moon?
It is easier to move things on the moon since the moon's gravity is only 1/6 of earth gravity. But astronauts wear bulky suits and must anchor themselves before lifting or moving anything. We do the same on earth but our body's muscular/skeletal system braces itself automatically. When you lift a heavy stone on earth, you plant your feet slightly apart, bend down, grasp the stone and lift using your legs, not your back. On the moon, bending over is not possible considering the suits, so different methods must be employed such as external bracing, tie downs, etc. The same stone on earth will only weigh 1/6 of what it did on earth.
Let us not think of it as time directly slowing down. Time is more of a human perception. Near massive objects space is more warped and it causes light to bend, chemical reactions and mechanical movements to slow down. However it also slows down our thinking and thus we won't be able to perceive the slowing down of time. May be it slows down communication between the neurons in our brains and thus our thinking. I am saying may be because no body has conducted any experiment to see how much does time actually slows down in the vicinity of high gravity(near a massive object) compared to a not do massive body. Now when you say massive, it may have as big as a star atleast to find any difference we human can appreciably perceive.However, to do so we'll need a clock which is unaffected by gravity so as to be able to measure slowing down of other chemical and mechanical processes. As of now we probably do not have such a clock which doesn't slow down at all with increasing gravity. The closest emulation of such clocks are the ones which bounce lasers off the moon.
When the “Spaceship One” craft (the first privately owned spacecraft) went into space - it returned rather slowly and gently…no problem.The reason it can do that is that it’s not in orbit. It goes straight up and then straight down again.When a craft is in orbit though - it has to zip around at about 8 kilometers per SECOND just to stay in orbit.When something moving that fast has to return to earth, it’s high enough that there is almost no air to slow it down. So as it descends, gravity pulls harder and harder and it goes faster and faster.By the time it starts to feel atmosphere and starts to slow down, it’s moving so ungodly fast, that the friction and the compression of the air ahead of it (the “bow shock”) heats it up…and you get all of the drama of which you speak.The only way to avoid that is to use rockets to slow down continually as you descend. However, that means carrying a lot of fuel to drive those rockets - that makes the spacecraft MUCH heavier - and that in turn means needing an even LARGER rocket to get the thing into orbit in the first place.On balance, it’s generally cheaper to use heat shielding and ablative layers that burn off to shed heat than it is to use retro-rockets all the way down.That said, this is exactly what SpaceX’s amazing re-usable rockets are able to achieve - although that’s not always possible for heavy loads and higher orbits.Things get more interesting when we try to land on Mars.On entry, similar things happen - but the atmosphere isn’t dense enough to slow the ship down enough - so they end up needing GIGANTIC parachutes - and then airbag technology or last-minute retrorockets. Fortunately, the lesser gravity makes for slower orbital speeds, so it’s still possible to land.When you consider the Apollo moon landings - they also had to kill orbital velocity - but ONLY with retrorockets - no aerodynamic or parachute braking. But again, the lesser gravity makes it possible.
If the first law of motion is correct, why do moving objects on Earth eventually stop moving?The 1729 English translation of the 3rd edition of Newton’s Principia Mathematica (translated by Andrew Motte) lists the first law as:Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.PROJECTILES persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are perpetually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in more free spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time.While the italicized part is what everyone quotes, the other paragraph answers your question. Projectiles and tops are “retarded by the resistance of the air”; planets (which, at the time, might have included the Moon) and comets don’t slow down as fast because of “less resistance in more free spaces”.Before Newton wrote the Principia it was generally thought that bodies had a preferred state of rest, and that in order for bodies to continue movement there had to be a force acting upon them.Newton’s First Law is a philosophical statement that that is wrong — bodies don’t need a continual force acting on them; their natural state is to ��persevere” in its state of rest or motion, unless a force “compels” it to change.But there’s a reason why the older idea persisted until Newton, and it’s reflected in your question: Why do moving objects on Earth eventually stop moving?Newton had to address that question, or people wouldn’t accept his work. Hence, the explanatory paragraph lists examples of motion and points out the forces acting upon them — air resistance, gravity — and how this slows them down or changes their motion from “uniform motion in a right line”. In doing so, he also invites the reader to accept other forces that would change their motion, like friction (which was first written about scientifically in 1699, between the 1st and 3rd editions of the Principia).
If you include using rocket power in your ‘throw something hard enough’ then sure. And it doesn’t have to be midnight. And it doesn’t have to be ‘away from the sun’. If you ‘throw something hard enough’ that it reaches the velocity necessary to (largely) escape earth’s gravitational pull, then it will probably reach an orbit. Unless you happen to ‘throw’ it exceptionally hard, in which case it might not start ‘falling’ until it is way past earth, the moon, and the other planets of the solar system…That’s assuming the only motive power is the initial ‘throw’. If you add some kind of continuous (or long term) power to sustain that movement, your item may continue to travel out of the solar system and into the dark space toward distant stars.Something in orbit is actually ‘falling’, but since everything in space is also MOVING, the path it follows as it falls is a circular (mostly) path around the nearest gravitational pull: an orbit.There are a few differences in the necessary power and speed of the initial powerful ‘throw’ (or ‘thrust’) depending on latitude (location on earth’s sphere) and direction, but nothing really critical for getting into an orbit. Closer to the equator is better, for instance (which is why we launch spacecraft from Florida). But few NASA scientists bother to schedule liftoffs for ‘midnight’ in order to make it ‘easier’ to get to orbit.